F.I.F.A. – Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2007-2008) – contributo di solidarietà – ———- F.I.F.A. – Dispute Resolution Chamber (2007-2008) – solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2008, in the following composition: ALOULOU Slim (Tunisia), Chairman MC GUIRE Mick (England), member GALLAVOTTI Mario (Italy), member MARTORELLI Rinaldo (Brazil), member SALEH AL HOUSANI Essa M. (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club AAA, Xxx, as Claimant against the club BBB, Xxx, as Respondent regarding the solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player DDD

F.I.F.A. - Camera di Risoluzione delle Controversie (2007-2008) - contributo di solidarietà – ---------- F.I.F.A. - Dispute Resolution Chamber (2007-2008) - solidarity contribution – official version by www.fifa.com – Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber passed in Zurich, Switzerland, on 28 March 2008, in the following composition: ALOULOU Slim (Tunisia), Chairman MC GUIRE Mick (England), member GALLAVOTTI Mario (Italy), member MARTORELLI Rinaldo (Brazil), member SALEH AL HOUSANI Essa M. (United Arab Emirates), member on the claim presented by the club AAA, Xxx, as Claimant against the club BBB, Xxx, as Respondent regarding the solidarity contribution for the transfer of the player DDD I. Facts of the case 1. According to the official confirmation of the Xxx Football Federation the Xxx player, DDD (hereinafter: the player), born on 15 July 1976, was registered for the Xxx club, AAA (hereinafter: the Claimant), from 10 September 1993 until 30 June 1994, from 2 until 9 September 1994, from 1 September until 27 October 1995 and from 12 January 1996 until 30 June 1997. 2. On 5 August 2004, the player was transferred from the Xxx club, CCC, to the Xxx club, BBB (hereinafter: the Respondent), for a transfer compensation in the amount of EUR 3,500,000, payable in one instalment of EUR 1,000,000, on 9 August 2004, and four equal instalments of EUR 625,000, the first one on 31 January 2005, the second one on 31 August 2005, the third one on 31 January 2006 and the fourth one on 31 August 2006. 3. On 13 August 2004, the player was registered at the Xxx Football Federation for its affiliated club, the Respondent. 4. On 30 May 2006, the Claimant lodged a claim at FIFA against the Respondent claiming the amount of EUR 52,280 as solidarity contribution plus default interest at a rate of 5% as from the moment on which the payment fell due. 5. In its response, based on the confirmation of the player’s career history meanwhile provided by the Xxx Football Federation, the Respondent agreed to pay the amount of EUR 42,718 to the Claimant. 6. In continuation, the Claimant acknowledged that only the amount of EUR 42,718 was due as solidarity contribution. 7. Subsequently, the Claimant communicated that the Respondent had still not made the relevant payment in spite of having made assurances that it would do so. For this reason, the Claimant requested that the matter should be submitted to the Dispute Resolution Chamber for a formal decision. II. Considerations of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. First of all, the Dispute Resolution Chamber analysed whether it was competent to deal with the case at hand. In this respect, it took note that the present matter was submitted to FIFA on 30 May 2006. Consequently, the Rules Governing the Procedures of the Players’ Status Committee and the Dispute Resolution Chamber (edition 2005; hereinafter: Procedural Rules) are applicable to the matter at hand (cf. art. 18 par. 2 and 3 of the Procedural Rules). 2. Subsequently, the members of the Chamber referred to art. 3 par. 1 of the Procedural Rules and confirmed that in accordance with art. 24 par. 1 in combination with art. 22 lit. (d) of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) the Dispute Resolution Chamber is competent to decide on the present litigation with an international dimension concerning the distribution of the solidarity contribution claimed by the Claimant in connection with the transfer of the professional player, DDD, during the course of a contract. 3. Furthermore, and taking into consideration that the player was registered with his new club on 13 August 2004, the Chamber analysed which regulations should be applicable as to the substance of the matter. In this respect, it confirmed that in accordance with art. 26 par. 1 and 2 of the Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players (edition 2008) the 2001 edition of the regulations (hereinafter: the Regulations) is applicable to the matter at hand as to the substance. 4. The competence of the Chamber and the applicable regulations having been established, the Chamber entered into the substance of the matter. The members of the Chamber started by acknowledging that the Claimant originally claimed the amount of EUR 52,280 as solidarity contribution plus default interest at a rate of 5% as from the moment on which the payment fell due. 5. In this regard, the Chamber took note that, in the meantime the Respondent had agreed to pay the amount of EUR 42,718 as solidarity contribution to the Claimant. Furthermore, the Chamber noted that the Claimant had accepted this amount as being the one due as solidarity contribution. 6. As a result of the above, the Chamber concluded that with regard to the entitlement of the Claimant to receive solidarity contribution as well as to the amount payable as solidarity contribution, an agreement had been reached between the parties involved. In this respect, the Chamber continued that, in accordance with the documentation on file, the Claimant had trained the player during two years and six months between the ages 12 - 23 and was therefore entitled to receive solidarity contribution. 7. However, the Chamber acknowledged that no payment had been made by the Respondent despite its assurances that it would do so. Thus, the Chamber decided that the Claimant is entitled to receive solidarity contribution in the amount of EUR 42,718 as agreed between the parties. 8. Moreover, in view of the fact that the Claimant, according to its final statement, requested a formal decision to be taken by the Dispute Resolution Chamber in the present matter due to the Respondent’s non-fulfilment, the Chamber established that the Claimant’s principal claim, regarding default interest a rate of 5% as from the day on which the payment of the solidarity contribution had fallen due, remains disputed. 9. In this respect, the Chamber, first and foremost, went on to examine whether the applicable Regulations contain explicit provisions, based on which the Claimant could be awarded default interest. 10. In this regard, the Chamber acknowledged that the Regulations do not foresee any provision stipulating, per se, the right for the Claimant to receive default interest for a possible late payment of the solidarity contribution. Indeed, the pertinent articles, in particular, art. 25 par. 2 of the Regulations in connection with art. 11 par. 3 of the Regulations governing the Application of the Regulations for the Status and Transfer of Players, stipulate explicitly that the Dispute Resolution Chamber may impose disciplinary measures on clubs that do not observe the obligations regarding the payment procedure of the solidarity contribution as set out in art. 11 par. 1 and 2 of the Application Regulations. 11. In view of the above, the Chamber concluded that the entitlement to receive default interest in connection with the solidarity mechanism cannot be derived from the Regulations, but that the Regulations left the decision whether to award default interest related to the payment of the solidarity contribution to the competent body’s discretion. Furthermore, the Chamber referred to its jurisprudence relating to the Solidarity Mechanism under the 2001 Regulations, in accordance with which default interest can be awarded. 12. In continuation, the Chamber recalled that the Claimant’s claim for the agreed amount due as solidarity contribution, which would constitute the basis for a possible award of default interest within the scope of the deciding authority’s discretion, had still not been settled by the Respondent. 13. On account of the above, and taking also into consideration that the Respondent finally lacked the goodwill to comply with its obligation to make the relevant payment and therefore a decision with regard to the Claimant’s claim for the payment of solidarity contribution as to the substance had to be taken, the Chamber reached the conclusion that there was valid reason to award the Claimant default interest. 14. In this regard, the Chamber decided that the Claimant should be awarded default interest at a rate of 5% per year. In this regard, the Chamber once more referred to its jurisprudence relating to Solidarity Mechanism under the 2001 Regulations, in accordance with which, in case of transfer compensation paid in instalments, the solidarity contribution relating to each instalment shall be paid within 30 days of the due date of each instalment. As a consequence, the Chamber decided that the Respondent has to pay 5% interest per year on the respective partial solidarity contribution amounts, starting on the day following the due date of the partial solidarity contribution payment (i.e. 30 days after the due date of each instalment as per the transfer agreement) and applicable until the effective date of payment to the Claimant. III. Decision of the Dispute Resolution Chamber 1. The claim of the Claimant, AAA, is partially accepted. 2. The Respondent, BBB, must pay to the Claimant, AAA, the amount of USD 42,718 plus default interest at a rate of 5% per year as from the due dates of the respective solidarity contribution contingent payments until the date of the effective payment, within 30 days as from the date of notification of this decision. 3. In the event that the above-mentioned amount is not paid within the stated deadline, the present matter shall be submitted, upon request, to FIFA’s Disciplinary Committee, so that the necessary disciplinary sanctions may be imposed. 4. Any further claim of the Claimant, AAA, is rejected. 5. The Claimant, AAA, is instructed to inform the Respondent, BBB, immediately and directly of the account number to which the remittance is to be made and to notify the Dispute Resolution Chamber of every payment received. Note relating to the motivated decision (legal remedy): According to art. 61 par. 1 of the FIFA Statutes, this decision may be appealed against before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The statement of appeal must be sent to the CAS directly within 21 days of receipt of notification of this decision and shall contain all the elements in accordance with point 2 of the directives issued by the CAS, a copy of which we enclose hereto. Within another 10 days following the expiry of the time limit for filing the statement of appeal, the appellant shall file a brief stating the facts and legal arguments giving rise to the appeal with the CAS (cf. point 4 of the directives). The full address and contact numbers of the CAS are the following: Court of Arbitration for Sport Avenue de Beaumont 2 1012 Lausanne Switzerland Tel: +41 21 613 50 00 Fax: +41 21 613 50 01 e-mail: info@tas-cas.org www.tas-cas.org For the Dispute Resolution Chamber: Jérôme Valcke Secretary General Encl. CAS directives